As you all should have heard by now. Arizona has recently passed an immigration law. While this law is not prefect and not complete, it is a step in the right direction. I want this to be a debate on the actual issue. I'm sure that if someone wants they could find semantical arguments or individual words in the law that could be improved. But let's have a go.

I shall negate the resolution, "The new Arizona immigration law is a step in the right direction."

Clarifications:

New Arizona Immigration Law: recent legislation passed in Arizona that essentially requires police officers to question anyone they suspect of being undocumented.

right direction: notice that the word "right" is not capitalized. If it was capitalized, the term would imply conservative or reactionary measures. However, the term is not capitalized, so we shall assume that it means "in conformity with reason or some standard/principle."

I will not pick out individual words in the law. I shall argue the negative of the resolution and attempt to persuade the audience that the recent Arizona Immigration Bill is not a step in the right direction.

This policy is a form of racial profiling. The bill promotes a form of racism involving police focus on people of certain racial groups in attempts to determine if someone is undocumented. It is pretty clear that the law enforcement within Arizona will focus more on people of noticeable Mexican or other Hispanic descent rather than Anglo-Saxons. Is this a step in the right direction? Police officers are not using any reason in their accusations; they are merely pinpointing people without proper evidence or warrant.

The major issue with this bill is that it undermines the generally accepted principle of "innocent until proven guilty." In fact, this law essentially proposes a policy of "guilty until proven innocent." A person is assumed to be undocumented until he can prove that he is documented. This is not "right" at all. It is quite contrary to one of the major principles upon which the United States represents.

"This policy is a form of racial profiling. The bill promotes a form of racism involving police focus on people of certain racial groups in attempts to determine if someone is undocumented. It is pretty clear that the law enforcement within Arizona will focus more on people of noticeable Mexican or other Hispanic descent rather than Anglo-Saxons."

My opponent makes that claim that the bill puts forth a policy of racial profiling, however it does not. This is clear to see because the bill does not mention race, only legality of citizenship, which any race can be legal or illegal. While it is true that in Arizona, nearly all the arrests will be of hispanic illegals, that is not due to racial profiling, but due to the fact that nearly all of the illegal immigrants in Arizona are hispanic.

While there may end up being individual cases of racial profiling, those cases would be caused by individual officers not doing their job correctly, as opposed to the law itself promoting it.

"The major issue with this bill is that it undermines the generally accepted principle of "innocent until proven guilty." In fact, this law essentially proposes a policy of "guilty until proven innocent." A person is assumed to be undocumented until he can prove that he is documented. This is not "right" at all. It is quite contrary to one of the major principles upon which the United States represents."

Police officers don't work under this principle, they never have. The courts work under this. If you are "suspected" of a crime with reasonable evidence (note that reasonable evidence is not proof, as many cases, people turn out to be innocent), the police will arrest you and the court will determine innocent or guilt.

This principle also applies to similar baseball saying "tie goes to the runner" meaning that "when in doubt, they are innocent," that also applies to the courts rather then officers.

Now officers are required to have reasonable suspicion (or whatever the legal term is, they have so many that sound the same to everyday people, but mean so much different in terms of law) as to prevent abuse, and in many cases have a warrant (which is a judge saying "there is reasonable suspicion"), but the police are not required to prove guilt before the arrest.

And this is the same that this Arizona law is doing, allowing officers "with reasonable suspicion" to make arrests for a long time standing federal crime.

The reason that people see this as racist or discriminatory is because they equate "illegal immigrant" with "mexican or hispanic" but the two are not the same. Let us change the wording of the law a bit for an example.

Instead of "It is illegal to be an illegal immigrant. Any officer may question anyone that they have reasonable suspicion is an illegal immigrant" we replace "an illegal immigrant" with "high on drugs" so it now reads. "It is illegal to be high on drugs. Any officer may question anyone that they have reasonable suspicion is high on drugs." That is certainly a law that we have had for a long time that doesn't get many complaints. But more men do drugs then women, does that mean that this law is sexist against men? Certainly not. Would it be sexist for an officer to question 5 men that appeared to be under the influence and no women? No, should he go questioning random women, just so he meets some quota that allows him to appear all nice and non-sexist? No.

There is, without question, a need to do something about immigration. The vast amount of illegals that we have cause crime (not every single one, but a much larger % then the rest of society), they take jobs (some are those that "americans don't want to do" but not all of them are), and they drain money from the government by over using social programs, which increases everyone's taxes.

While there are many things that need to be done, and not any single bill will fix the problem, part of it is to make sure that the US is not a "safe haven" where once in, they are safe from punishment. This bill accomplishes that (at least in Arizona) and so, is a step in the right direction.

"My opponent makes that claim that the bill puts forth a policy of racial profiling, however it does not. This is clear to see because the bill does not mention race, only legality of citizenship, which any race can be legal or illegal. While it is true that in Arizona, nearly all the arrests will be of hispanic illegals, that is not due to racial profiling, but due to the fact that nearly all of the illegal immigrants in Arizona are hispanic."
Have you ever noticed that some things are "implied" and taken differently than what is actually written? It's easy to see that law enforcement will focus on Hispanic people and others who do not generate a White appearance. Why? Unfortunately, it is assumed that most of the illegal immigrants will be from Latin countries or elsewhere around the world. The effects of this bill make cops focus on trying to determine if someone is illegal, and the focus will be on a traditional-looking illegal, one of noticeable Hispanic decent.

"While there may end up being individual cases of racial profiling, those cases would be caused by individual officers not doing their job correctly, as opposed to the law itself promoting it."
So what? The whole point of a law is to have a policy executed and followed. The effects of this law result in racial profiling. The law promotes racial profiling, and in respects to common sense, most officers will go for stereotypes to determine who is illegal under the new law.

"Police officers don't work under this principle, they never have. The courts work under this. If you are "suspected" of a crime with reasonable evidence (note that reasonable evidence is not proof, as many cases, people turn out to be innocent), the police will arrest you and the court will determine innocent or guilt."
However, this belief of "reasonable evidence" usually comes with a warrant, smell of foul substances, or some already gathered proof. The police officers will start individually investigating people merely on looking at someone and determining if he could be illegal only based on appearance. Just because there's a black guy in a dark alley, means that cops will have to search him for drugs? This is simply ridiculous.

"This principle also applies to similar baseball saying "tie goes to the runner" meaning that "when in doubt, they are innocent," that also applies to the courts rather then officers."
Look at the above.

"Now officers are required to have reasonable suspicion (or whatever the legal term is, they have so many that sound the same to everyday people, but mean so much different in terms of law) as to prevent abuse, and in many cases have a warrant (which is a judge saying "there is reasonable suspicion"), but the police are not required to prove guilt before the arrest."
As I have explained previously, there is no legitimate reasonable suspicion based on someone's outer appearance or superficial analysis. It is unreasonable to arrest someone simply because he or she does not currently have papers on their person. I will give an example in a couple of explanations.

"And this is the same that this Arizona law is doing, allowing officers "with reasonable suspicion" to make arrests for a long time standing federal crime."
This reasonable suspicion is only based upon how someone looks or a conclusion based off of nothing that is reasonable in the first place.

"Instead of "It is illegal to be an illegal immigrant. Any officer may question anyone that they have reasonable suspicion is an illegal immigrant" we replace "an illegal immigrant" with "high on drugs" so it now reads. "It is illegal to be high on drugs. Any officer may question anyone that they have reasonable suspicion is high on drugs." That is certainly a law that we have had for a long time that doesn't get many complaints. But more men do drugs then women, does that mean that this law is sexist against men? Certainly not. Would it be sexist for an officer to question 5 men that appeared to be under the influence and no women? No, should he go questioning random women, just so he meets some quota that allows him to appear all nice and non-sexist? No."
Really? When cops are suspicious of drugs, they either smell them, have seen a deal take place, or have dogs that can sense the smell. You cannot compare this to the topic of illegal immigration, where there is no smell, deal, or animal sensing taking place. For the illegal immigration policy, it's a matter of external appearance, which is simply unjust.

The bill does not accomplish a step in the right direction. This measure is simply bad for law enforcement, for immigrant communities, and bad for everyone because some crooks will even go free. The latter will now be explained in a logical scenario:

Picture that you are Hispanic, and that you are the only one to witness a hit-and-run. You are on the way home from the park with your kids, and didn't bring you wallet because you figured you wouldn't need it. Will you reveal yourself as a witness to the aggrieved party, and consequently to be interviewed by police offers, so that the over-aggressive deputies can drag you downtown and result in inconvenience, embarrassment, and expense to prove that you are legal? Hell no! You are getting out of there before the cops come, and the drunk driver will not get away. Encouraging law enforcement to get involved in immigration matters results in less interaction between immigration communities and law enforcement, which as you can tell by the logical scenario, is not good.

"Unfortunately, it is assumed that most of the illegal immigrants will be from Latin countries or elsewhere around the world."

That is not an assumption, that is a fact.

"The effects of this bill make cops focus on trying to determine if someone is illegal, and the focus will be on a traditional-looking illegal, one of noticeable Hispanic decent."

Police will go for those that are suspected to be illegal with reasonable cause. Cops will not, as guided by the law, go after people simply because they are hispanic. They will mostly be getting those that don't speak any english and have no IDs, as the Feds already do (and have done for years). An Officer would do the same whether this individual (with no english skills or IDs) was hispanic or asian.

"The whole point of a law is to have a policy executed and followed. The effects of this law result in racial profiling. The law promotes racial profiling, and in respects to common sense, most officers will go for stereotypes to determine who is illegal under the new law."

some officers racially profile (or gender-ly profile) people that they give speeding tickets to. Does that mean that we should abolish all speed limits? Of course not, because a few bad officers don't follow the law as it is written, does not mean that the law itself is faulty, only that the select individuals that are poorly enforcing it are faulty.

"However, this belief of "reasonable evidence" usually comes with a warrant, smell of foul substances, or some already gathered proof."

They are required to have that reasonable evidence first, like the person was not wearing a seatbelt or was speeding, then the officer needs to have a reason to confirm legality. An officer cannot simply approach someone and say "hey, you don't look like you are a legal immigrant, show me your papers."

"Just because there's a black guy in a dark alley, means that cops will have to search him for drugs?"

No, but the officer should check out the situation to make sure everything is fine, since it isn't normal behavior to stand in a dark alley doing nothing. There is nothing wrong with officers trying to help out.

"Really? When cops are suspicious of drugs, they either smell them, have seen a deal take place, or have dogs that can sense the smell. You cannot compare this to the topic of illegal immigration, where there is no smell, deal, or animal sensing taking place. For the illegal immigration policy, it's a matter of external appearance, which is simply unjust."

Not true, officers often make their judgement based on how the people are acting. Like durning a routine traffic stop, if the person is freaking out and acting unusual, they may ask the person to step out and search the car.

Continuing off the driving example. When you are pulled over by an officer, what is the first thing they always ask? "License and Registration (and proof of insurance here in Oregon)" that right there, removes the "implied need" to base anything on race at all, since it is asked to everyone.

"Picture that you are Hispanic, and that you are the only one to witness a hit-and-run. You are on the way home from the park with your kids, and didn't bring you wallet because you figured you wouldn't need it. Will you reveal yourself as a witness to the aggrieved party, and consequently to be interviewed by police offers, so that the over-aggressive deputies can drag you downtown and result in inconvenience, embarrassment, and expense to prove that you are legal? Hell no! You are getting out of there before the cops come, and the drunk driver will not get away. Encouraging law enforcement to get involved in immigration matters results in less interaction between immigration communities and law enforcement, which as you can tell by the logical scenario, is not good."

That bias statement right there made the whole paragraph not worth responding too, but I will for the sake of debate. Not to mention that it is flawed to begin with. If you are a witness (hispanic or white) the police are going to ask for your identity anyway so that can generate a witness report. Also, with the police currently investigating a crime, they would not "harass" you for ID since they are already busy. That would be like police in a high-speed chase with a bank robber, pulling off to give someone a ticket for not signaling, completely illogical.

My opponent is attempting to make it seem like all decisions will be based on looks and appearance alone and nothing else. If that was the case, I wouldn't be supporting this, but since the officers need reasonable cause first and every traffic stop begins with asking for ID, it is easy to see that they can check people without having to resort to any type of profiling.

Typically, I usually forfeit my round after an instance where my opponent was unable to complete theirs, but since this is the final round, I will post regardless.

The Arizona Law can clearly be seen from it's text that it does not promote, encourage, or even allow the profiling or disrespect of rights to anyone, hispanic or other. It is already common practice for officers to ask for ID during a traffic stop and to make judgements based on how people are acting (for drug and alcohol use while driving).

We also must acknowledge that, based on the text of the law, that it does not focus on how one looks, but on how one acts that is to make officers suspicious.

B/A - PRO
Conduct - PRO - Con forfeited, not one, but two rounds.
S&G - TIE - No egregious errors on either side
ARG - PRO - The resolution wasn't to discuss whether or not the law profiled, it was to discuss whether or not it was a step in the right direction. Though the wording of the resolution is vague, I assume, based on the argument that "the right direction" implies that it is working to get rid of illegal immigrants, as noted by badgerking, it is a step.
SOURCES - PRO - SAC8 had no sources.